When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

Yes, Muslims always blame everyone else for their problems. Muslims are perfect in every way.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

I agree that muslim terrorism is constantly fueled by the West. But my problem with Islam is in the Kuran, not really in any islamic country. So that sentence you start with "the majority..." don't think that is true.

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

Yes, Muslims always blame everyone else for their problems. Muslims are perfect in every way.

This guy was literally comparing his country's struggles to mine, even though he doesn't know anything about its history. I was complaining about how we were mistreated by the Ottoman Empire, being enslaved and executed by them due to our religion, and later he went on to say how glorious the Ottoman Empire was and kept blaming every problem my country's ever had on the Brits. That's how utterly out of touch with reality he is.

"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello

I agree that muslim terrorism is constantly fueled by the West. But my problem with Islam is in the Kuran, not really in any islamic country. So that sentence you start with "the majority..." don't think that is true.

Response: Then what is in the text that shows indecency or teaches against establishing peace?

I agree that muslim terrorism is constantly fueled by the West. But my problem with Islam is in the Kuran, not really in any islamic country. So that sentence you start with "the majority..." don't think that is true.

Response: Then what is in the text that shows indecency or teaches against establishing peace?

Please Fatihah, you have almost 7000 posts and you are asking about the violent-to- absurdity verses in the Quran? The more than one hundred verses I'm talking about have been repeatedly thrown in your face with you trying to defend them and in the process embarassing yourself. You will have more luck defending Hitler was a peaceful, beaufitul, tolerant and kind human being.

This guy was literally comparing his country's struggles to mine, even though he doesn't know anything about its history. I was complaining about how we were mistreated by the Ottoman Empire, being enslaved and executed by them due to our religion, and later he went on to say how glorious the Ottoman Empire was and kept blaming every problem my country's ever had on the Brits. That's how utterly out of touch with reality he is.

Response: The current Muslim states and countries were all colonized, and gained independence with leaders put in place and supported by the West. Every single one of them, and the terrorists regimes support Wahhabism.

You've presented nothing to disprove any of the above, so clearly you are out of touch with reality.

Please Fatihah, you have almost 7000 posts and you are asking about the violent-to- absurdity verses in the Quran? The more than one hundred verses I'm talking about have been repeatedly thrown in your face with you trying to defend them and in the process embarassing yourself. You will have more luck defending Hitler was a peaceful, beaufitul, tolerant and kind human being.

Response: In other words, you cannot quote any verses to support your claim, thus refuting yourself. Thanks for clarifying.

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:Every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe.

I don't believe that's true of Turkey, Fati, though I think it broadly true. Turkey was occupied after WWI, and has certainly felt European influence in its affairs, but I don't believe it was ever colonised. I also agree that a great deal of the developmental issues afflicting Muslim states today are legacies of Eurocolonialism and petrohegemonism -- and that's not just true of Muslim states, but of course of non-Muslim and non-Christian states in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

On the other hand, the way corruption, injustice and cruelty expressed in Muslim states are culturally-dependent. The stonings, beheadings and particular forms of female oppression do not come from colonial influences: their influences are found in the Qur'an, while the culture of bribery is pre-Islamic, and never seems to have been reformed.

Moreover, the Muslim states that have developed notions of secular justice, religious equality, gender equality and human dignity (I'd place Turkey and Indonesia as more developed than most on these matters) seem to have done so despite their colonial and Muslim heritage.

So you're right that it's more complex than Atlantic bigotry normally describes, but it's also more complex than Muslim nationalism normally describes too.

I agree with you that Wahhabism serves nobody but a few theocratic families, and that its dominance in the Middle East is largely to related to the actions of petrohegemonistic interests. Atlantic states have interfered with the state affairs of many countries (including those of other Atlantic states), and often made politically naive and socially unjust decisions based largely on greed.

They've paid for those decisions too, of course. But there's no doubt that the citizens of affected states, and their neighbours have paid more.

So I don't agree with everything you say, but you're right that Atlantic reporting on these matters is an airless echo-chamber. It's helpful and informative to see another perspective.

This guy was literally comparing his country's struggles to mine, even though he doesn't know anything about its history. I was complaining about how we were mistreated by the Ottoman Empire, being enslaved and executed by them due to our religion, and later he went on to say how glorious the Ottoman Empire was and kept blaming every problem my country's ever had on the Brits. That's how utterly out of touch with reality he is.

Response: The current Muslim states and countries were all colonized, and gained independence with leaders put in place and supported by the West. Every single one of them, and the terrorists regimes support Wahhabism.

You've presented nothing to disprove any of the above, so clearly you are out of touch with reality.

I'm not the one out of touch with reality, you are. On the other thread, I was talking about how oppressed we were from the Ottoman Empire, and you went on to say we were more oppressed by the Brits, even though the Ottomans were executing people trying to convert them to Islam, while the Brits never did any random executions.

By "Muslim States" being colonized, which countries are you precisely talking about?

"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello

This guy was literally comparing his country's struggles to mine, even though he doesn't know anything about its history. I was complaining about how we were mistreated by the Ottoman Empire, being enslaved and executed by them due to our religion, and later he went on to say how glorious the Ottoman Empire was and kept blaming every problem my country's ever had on the Brits. That's how utterly out of touch with reality he is.

Response: The current Muslim states and countries were all colonized, and gained independence with leaders put in place and supported by the West. Every single one of them, and the terrorists regimes support Wahhabism.

You've presented nothing to disprove any of the above, so clearly you are out of touch with reality.

I don't believe that's true of Turkey, Fati, though I think it broadly true. Turkey was occupied after WWI, and has certainly felt European influence in its affairs, but I don't believe it was ever colonised. I also agree that a great deal of the developmental issues afflicting Muslim states today are legacies of Eurocolonialism and petrohegemonism -- and that's not just true of Muslim states, but of course of non-Muslim and non-Christian states in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

On the other hand, the way corruption, injustice and cruelty expressed in Muslim states are culturally-dependent. The stonings, beheadings and particular forms of female oppression do not come from colonial influences: their influences are found in the Qur'an, while the culture of bribery is pre-Islamic, and never seems to have been reformed.

Moreover, the Muslim states that have developed notions of secular justice, religious equality, gender equality and human dignity (I'd place Turkey and Indonesia as more developed than most on these matters) seem to have done so despite their colonial and Muslim heritage.

So you're right that it's more complex than Atlantic bigotry normally describes, but it's also more complex than Muslim nationalism normally describes too.

I agree with you that Wahhabism serves nobody but a few theocratic families, and that its dominance in the Middle East is largely to related to the actions of petrohegemonistic interests. Atlantic states have interfered with the state affairs of many countries (including those of other Atlantic states), and often made politically naive and socially unjust decisions based largely on greed.

They've paid for those decisions too, of course. But there's no doubt that the citizens of affected states, and their neighbours have paid more.

So I don't agree with everything you say, but you're right that Atlantic reporting on these matters is an airless echo-chamber. It's helpful and informative to see another perspective.

Thank you for posting, and I hope you will continue to do so.

Response: Stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an, though it was a practice within Islam. Beheading is mentioned in war, and no teaching in the Qur'an says to oppress women or oppression at all.

Therefore, the advancements of any Muslim state or country cannot be related to ideas outside of Islam, because there is no teaching in the Qur'an that says Islam is against advancement and prior to being colonized, the Muslim empires were the most advanced.

I'm not the one out of touch with reality, you are. On the other thread, I was talking about how oppressed we were from the Ottoman Empire, and you went on to say we were more oppressed by the Brits, even though the Ottomans were executing people trying to convert them to Islam, while the Brits never did any random executions.

By "Muslim States" being colonized, which countries are you precisely talking about?

Response: You said you were oppressed by the Ottomans, followed by no evidence. Secondly, whether you were oppressed or not was never in contention so it was a meaningless point. Third, I never said you were oppressed by the Brits I said you were colonized.

So your points remain pointless and have nothing to do with the actual topic.

It derives from Judaic scripture, which Muslims venerate, as I'm sure you know.

Beheading is mentioned in war, and no teaching in the Qur'an says to oppress women or oppression at all.

Fati, ancient Muslm thought has the same problem as ancient Judaic and Christian thought: it's so self-satisfiedly, closed-mindedly patriarchal, it cannot even see its own bigotry toward women.

Judaic and Christian thought are not superior on this, but their cultures have had longer to challenge and change it for largely economic reasons. Muslim countries have a respectable recent history of women in power despite Muslim patriarchies (Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Megawati Soekarnoputri in Indonesia for example, plus a growing range of female legislators in places like Afghanistan and Turkey.) This is not a matter that needs Western agitation to develop: under stable economic development, Muslim women can and shall develop it themselves.

On the other hand, men in Muslim countries are about where men in Christian countries were in the late 19th century: they still can't see the problem.

Fati, ancient Muslm thought has the same problem as ancient Judaic and Christian thought: it's so self-satisfiedly, closed-mindedly patriarchal, it cannot even see its own bigotry toward women.

Judaic and Christian thought are not superior on this, but their cultures have had longer to challenge and change it for largely economic reasons. Muslim countries have a respectable recent history of women in power despite Muslim patriarchies (Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Megawati Soekarnoputri in Indonesia for example, plus a growing range of female legislators in places like Afghanistan and Turkey.) This is not a matter that needs Western agitation to develop: under stable economic development, Muslim women can and shall develop it themselves.

On the other hand, men in Muslim countries are about where men in Christian countries were in the late 19th century: they still can't see the problem.

That'll change. :)

Response: There is no "Muslim thought". So from the start your viewpoint is based on the very thing you critique: self-satisfied, closed-minded, patriarchal, and bigotry towards women.

And when we consider the inability to actually quote from the Qur'an or Sunnah to back the claim, it becomes apparent.

Fati, ancient Muslm thought has the same problem as ancient Judaic and Christian thought: it's so self-satisfiedly, closed-mindedly patriarchal, it cannot even see its own bigotry toward women.

Judaic and Christian thought are not superior on this, but their cultures have had longer to challenge and change it for largely economic reasons. Muslim countries have a respectable recent history of women in power despite Muslim patriarchies (Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Megawati Soekarnoputri in Indonesia for example, plus a growing range of female legislators in places like Afghanistan and Turkey.) This is not a matter that needs Western agitation to develop: under stable economic development, Muslim women can and shall develop it themselves.

On the other hand, men in Muslim countries are about where men in Christian countries were in the late 19th century: they still can't see the problem.

That'll change. :)

There is no "Muslim thought".

Qu'ranic doctrine does not tell people what to believe, how to live and act?

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

Nope. You can blaim the religion. When its founder was accused of demon posession as a child, accidentally was deceived by Satan into writing "Satanic verses", then thought his "revelation" came from a demon in a cave, and molested a 6 year old...that my friend is and was the recipe for the cult of death we now call Islam.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

Notice the countries established from Europeans like Canada, Australia, the U.S., Mexico, etc posted...ZERO suicide bombers in 2015. Europeans didn't train the plethara of Islamic suicide bombers to be psychopaths. Muhammed did.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/1/2016 6:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:When people want to criticize Islam, the majority of their argument is not to use the actual texts itself, but to say "look at the Muslim countries". Yet they always highlight the same Muslim states and countries despite the fact that there are about 50 Muslim states. For example, they will say look at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet the conditions in these countries are completely different than Morocco, Dubai, Turkey, and other Muslim states and countries. Why is there a big difference between these states, despite all of them being a Muslim country?

The reason very single Muslim state, I repeat, every single Muslim state in existence was once colonized by Europe or countries in Europe. Once they achieved independence, their political and economic system was set up by countries in Europe and the leaders in the country were supported and placed into power by European countries.

Yet in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Egypt, etc., the people put into power by the West were 'Terrorists" who practiced a sectarian belief of Islam known as Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia for example is named after the family of Saud"s who were a group who constantly tried to overthrow the Uthmani empire. This means that all Muslims did not believe their version of Islam but the British supplied them with weapons and money and allowed them to come into power, provided that the West can use their oil and shores in exchange. So now a radical version of Islam becomes mainstream and the greater authority in Muslim lands.

In short, it is Wahhabism that is the root of radicals in Islam. Not Islam. This version is able to spread because the British and their Western alliance put these people into power. Not the Muslims.

Yes, Muslims always blame everyone else for their problems. Muslims are perfect in every way.

They always have a way of playing the victim, while conveniently forgetting the hell they unleashed on North Africa and Europe before and after their prophet died. They took and took from everyone and gave nothing.

Nope. You can blaim the religion. When its founder was accused of demon posession as a child, accidentally was deceived by Satan into writing "Satanic verses", then thought his "revelation" came from a demon in a cave, and molested a 6 year old...that my friend is and was the recipe for the cult of death we now call Islam.

They always have a way of playing the victim, while conveniently forgetting the hell they unleashed on North Africa and Europe before and after their prophet died. They took and took from everyone and gave nothing.

Response: No Muslim Army ever went to North Africa and a Christian Pope started the crusades.

They always have a way of playing the victim, while conveniently forgetting the hell they unleashed on North Africa and Europe before and after their prophet died. They took and took from everyone and gave nothing.

Response: No Muslim Army ever went to North Africa and a Christian Pope started the crusades.

The crusades were an answer to 300 years of Muslim aggression. Know your history. This is one Westerner you are not fooling with your crusades nonsense.

Nope. You can blaim the religion. When its founder was accused of demon posession as a child, accidentally was deceived by Satan into writing "Satanic verses", then thought his "revelation" came from a demon in a cave, and molested a 6 year old...that my friend is and was the recipe for the cult of death we now call Islam.

Response: You must be confused with your own Bible (Matthew 4:1).

Sorry. No suicide Christian bombers to 451 Muslim suicide bombers in 2015. That would be reality. Apparently the Europeans didn't teach suicide bombings seeing they practice none themselves. Nice attempt to scapegoat for Muhammed as Muslims do best.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

The crusades were an answer to 300 years of Muslim aggression. Know your history. This is one Westerner you are not fooling with your crusades nonsense.

Response: Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years, India for about 1,000 and no Muslim Army ever went to North Africa or Eastern Asia, where the majority of Muslims live. Therefore, if Muslims wanted to be aggressive, there would be no non-Muslims because they could have easily wiped them out.

So know your history, as your propaganda won't work. Arabia is small and cannot aggressively do anything to a Roman or Byzantine Empire nor can you provide ANY valid source that says the Muslims were the aggressors. So you are one Westerner who has already fooled himself.

Sorry. No suicide Christian bombers to 451 Muslim suicide bombers in 2015. That would be reality. Apparently the Europeans didn't teach suicide bombings seeing they practice none themselves. Nice attempt to scapegoat for Muhammed as Muslims do best.

Response: Sorry. Your Christian brethren anti-balaka are a terrorists group in Africa beheading and killing Muslims, your American forefathers who were Christians who wiped out native Americans, enslaved blacks, and presidents who put sanctions on Muslim countries killing innocent women and children and your suicide bombing statistic still falls short to your Jesus saying he is against peace Matthew 10:34.

Nice failed attempt to scapegoat from your sadistic Jesus and Christian hate as Christians like you do best.

Sorry. No suicide Christian bombers to 451 Muslim suicide bombers in 2015. That would be reality. Apparently the Europeans didn't teach suicide bombings seeing they practice none themselves. Nice attempt to scapegoat for Muhammed as Muslims do best.

Response: Sorry. Your Christian brethren anti-balaka are a terrorists group in Africa beheading and killing Muslims, your American forefathers who were Christians who wiped out native Americans, enslaved blacks, and presidents who put sanctions on Muslim countries killing innocent women and children and your suicide bombing statistic still falls short to your Jesus saying he is against peace Matthew 10:34.

Nice failed attempt to scapegoat from your sadistic Jesus and Christian hate as Christians like you do best.

Show us the European minded suicide bombers. You attacked Europe as your religion's scapegoat for why Islam is so terroristic so...the Europeans ought to be running rampant with suicide bombers. Show them to us.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."